Hello T.N.
Thank you for the excellent article. The whole labeling debate has a tendency to be over-generalized, and it's refreshing to see a balanced look at the initiative and the reasons why it failed. I've written my own post on the topic, and I welcome anyone to take a look.http://dev.isucomm.iastate.edu/thegreenroom/ehoward/

It's not the "the health or environmental effects of GMOs" that people fear. It's the economic effect of huge multinationals getting an ever tighter grip on agriculture, patenting their genetic modifications and putting smaller farmers out of business / on trial.

"Appproximately 41 percent of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives. The incidence of some cancers, including some most common among children, is increasing for unexplained reasons."

This comes from the Cancer's Panel 2008-2009 annual report to the President of the US.

It also says: "Insecticides, herbicides and fungicides...contain nearly 900 ingredients, many of which are toxic...but are not required to be tested for their potential to cause chronic diseases such as cancer."

Corn GM products are designed to be resistant to herbicides, allowing for the use of more herbicides to kill competing weeds, as the plant is growing and therefore also absorbing the herbicide as it grows.

Other GM plants are designed to produce pesticides, thanks to the added gene, protecting the plant from insects. The cattle, or humans eating the plant, of course eat those pesticides being produced directly by the plant.

I have been told (many times) that Americans value Freedom very highly. What about the freedom to know what you eat?

We do know what we eat. Almost every food product we eat is a direct product of genetic modification. It is you that does not know this. You delude yourself. Why should the rest of us participate in your delusions?

You have it backwards. You have the freedom to grow your own food and know exactly what you are eating. You have the freedom to buy food only from those who choose to label it according to your desires. Others have the freedom to produce food which caters to your particular desires. In fact, some foods are labelled as being free from GMOs because there are consumers who value this information. But those who supported the Washington measure are not satisfied with freedom. They want to coerce food producers everywhere to cater to their preferences and to burden everyone else with sharing the cost. Measure 522 called for coercion, not freedom.

Dear Rob S and Space...
A new GM corn seed called SmartStax produces six different insecticides due to its added genes and is resistant to two herbicides that it can absorb without harm.
All those toxins produce metabolites as it is ingested by cattle and humans. It is by far not proven that this accumulation of toxic molecules in the food chain is not an issue for human and animal health.
By the way, I took a few science classes. I have a bachelor degree in Biology.

Just because you call a protein that confers insect resistance on a plant an "insecticide" doesn't mean that it is anything like an artificial chemical insecticide.
"Bt" corn uses a gene from Bacillis Thuringensis - which has been used by Organic farmers as "natural" insecticide for years. As soon as they started putting it into the corn genome, they started calling it an evil insecticide and saying it was toxic. It isn't.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacillus_thuringiensis

How many of the custom proteins will actually find their way into the food supply? I too have a bachelor's in biology, and one of first things we learned regarding the central dogma of genetics is that not all genes are expressed in all cells and tissues of an organism. If the "pesticide" proteins are only produced on the leaves of the corn, why worry?

Also, do you have any sources on the toxicity of any of the proteins being ported into SmartStax? For example, Bt is perfectly harmless to humans, though it is incredibly potent on insect stomachs, which are very different than ours.

I choose to trust that scientists including the ones at "Big Ag" companies, have the best interests of the world in mind when designing their products, and that the farmers who use them know best when it comes to the most efficient, and sustainable because they know the land even better than we do, ways to feed the world.

Dear guest-Imajoaa,
I understand that you prefer to trust scientists in "Big Ag" companies. But they do not make the main decisions. Executives do, they have to satisfy the shareholders, which in a big public company means they have to perform to keep the company's share price up.

I have worked in a big public company. The main owners were often Hedge Funds. These people would care only about next quarter's share price. That consideration would go before a lot of other considerations, including what you call the interests of the world. Executives also have their incentives based on the company's share price.

On that subject, John Mack, the former CEO of Morgan Stanley, said to a journalist asking him how Wall Street could prevent another financial crisis: "We cannot control ourselves". He thought Regulators had to step in and control the Street.

Same with "Big Ag" companies. Their focus is to satisfy their shareholders, not save the World.

So you might think: well the FDA will do the regulation. Actually the scientific studies made to justify the introduction of a new GM product are made by the company producing it. That's not independent and transparent research. Neither is it validated by other competent labs.

So I would say the main concern of the Big Ag companies is profit, and the regulators do not have valid scientific studies to look at. Plus they might have conflicts of interests themselves, as it already happened in the past.

Regarding Bt, you are right, that molecule is widely regarded as non toxic. I don't know that it will be the case for future insecticides produced by GM plants. The important question is: how would we know?

This is one of the stupidest controversies we have had in a long time. We do not have laws requiring "non-organic" foods to be labeled to protect organic food crackpots from the fatal risk of choosing the wrong food. We don't provide such protection for kosher Jews. Muslims aren't provided special protection to protect them from eating pork. All of these religious minorities have to take the trouble to find foods that fulfill their special needs. Now we have non-GMO zealots demanding special treatment. Who next to demand labeling? How many labels will we need to satisfy everyone? Non-Mexican? Non-Chinese?

Why are you incapable of using the same reasoning power that organic food lovers and Orthodox Jews use, Just. Is it too difficult for you to figure out that foods without any label are conventional GMO foods?

My problem is that I don't believe you when you claim you are that stupid. I believe that you are motivated by the idea that this labeling exercise will promote your ideology. There are some, more honest than you, who admit that this is the reason for this movement.

I also believe that fighters against labeling are ideologically motivated.

Fortunately, technology is going in our direction and there will come a time when you will just scan the label and get access to a page with precise specs. not just GM or non-GM, but full traceability.

You are confused by your assumption that some types of GMO foods are genetically different than conventional foods. From a biological perspective, virtually al foods we eat have been genetically modified from their natural state. The differences are not biological. They are political. There are, as yet, no biological tests to determine political variation.

However, it is refreshing to hear an admission that you are motivated by your politics.

"For its part, in recent years the FDA has had no appetite to get involved in this battle without explicit direction from Congress. And with strong support in some congressional quarters for compulsory labelling, it is hard to see the GMA getting its own way here."
Since this Administration saw fit to appoint Monsanto's (& 3M's, & Dow Chemical's) attorney of record to head the USDA, I don't see the GMA community suffering any more than slight inconvenience.

It is unbelievable how many people who claim to be reasonable, scientifically informed and well meaning ... want to hide GM in food, so that people will not have the choice to decide by themselves.

This is really shocking to me. To me, it is a basic democratic right. Where do these people get the idea that just because they "believe some scientists", it gives them the right to insist someone else must ingest the stuff.

The right to be informed is not a constitutional right, but even if it were, this isn't about the right to be or not to be informed. No legislation is passed prohibiting labeling or investigation into what is and what is not GM food. It's simply refusing to waste resources and money in meaningless scaremongering.

If someone wants to avoid GM food, they only need to go the extra step of going online or going to specialty stores.

You're right. People have the right to know what's in the food they eat. They also have the right to choose what foods they eat. In fact, nobody is forcing anyone to purchase foods at a grocery store. If you really want to know how your food is grown, you have every right to stop participating in the markets and grow it yourself.

The debate over labeling GM food is the equivalent of the arguments advanced by intelligent design supporters.

Anti-GM - Even if there's no evidence that GM food is harmful, we should label it and let people decide.

Intelligent Design - Even if there's no evidence contradicting Evolution, we should let people decide what is right.

Since there is no scientific reason to label GM foods there is no public reason to label GM foods. If people want to indulge in the muddy logic of organics they're free to buy overpriced produce in specialty supermarkets.

Many people do not agree with your claim that there is no scientific evidence. Many doctors, and you can google them yourself, are convinced that the safety of GM has not been proven. There is no justification, in a democracy, to force people to eat GM, if they do not want to. Hence the labeling.

The idea that people much not be allowed to know what they eat, just because there are scientists who believe it to be safe, is simply monstrous. It is Stalinist mentality in a capitalist context.

Adding insult to injury, the doubters are subjected to disqualifications and being called names by the likes of yourself. All I can say is: shame on you!

True! Which is one of the reasons why this must remain an individual decision. I am against the government and some scientific priesthood deciding what I must eat.
And the more aggressive they are, the more suspicious I am of their motives and their science.

What names did I call doubters? I called the logic muddy, but that's not an ad homenim attack, that's an attack on the logic of the position. You will find many people, all googleable, who will support Intelligent Design. That doesn't make the idea any more legitimate.

Until there is a scientific consensus or strong enough doubt there is no reason to make public health policy based on subjective opinion. Food & health policy based on the empirical findings of the 'scientific priesthood' that has managed to triple life-expectancy and beat back Malthusian predictions mass starvation is far better than vague, unsubstantiated and pretentious rich-world problems whining.

Not all information is equal and is deserving of legislative enforcement. Until people supporting GM labeling prove there is a legitimate public health interest for it to exist, it should not exist.

By the way, in this land of Stalinist Capitalism (whatever that is), you are not forced to eat GM food. There are plenty of places where you can go to eat non-GM food. In fact, there are entire websites, restaurants and supermarkets that cater to ignorance with deep pockets.

Muddy logic is insulting. It is insulting to the many scientists and doctors who do not agree that GM has been proven safe. Furthermore, it is not just a matter of food safety, there are many other issues in the GM debate, from the effect on the environment to commercial and ethical issues. It just cannot be reduced to "is it safe to ingest" even though I do not believe that even this has been conclusively proven.

Intelligent Design is a completely legitimate position in a democratic society, regardless of the fact that the two of us find it funny. Non-labeling is the equivalent of censoring Intelligent Design, it just won't do.

What you are saying about labeling is false. All food products have to be labeled with their contents, there are some exceptions for things that are considered irrelevant. So, proponents of non-labeling are the ones that need to prove that GM content is irrelevant. But, in a democracy, it cannot be irrelevant if millions want to know.

In the land of "Stalinist Capitalism", which does not yet exist, but which you are unknowingly advocating, it is impossible to avoid GM food, because it is not labeled and has worked its way into all other products. This is what I oppose.

Opinion does not deserve the same legal weight as fact. Intelligent Design is not a 'legitimate position', it is an belief system pretending to empirical truth value. It doesn't meet the basic requirement of science. Anyone is free to hold this opinion, but that doesn't mean everyone needs to respect it.

All ingredients are labeled. If you want to find if something is GM, google it. There's no reason to label it GM in the same way as there's no reason to label an ingredient by place of origin. It's irrelevant.

It's easy to say 'many scientists and doctors' and 'millions', but where are your statistics and where is your evidence? GM foods have been on tables now for generations and there has been no ill effects. And as to environment, thanks to GM, we can now feed billions that would otherwise starve in the poor world. Food scientists are some of the greatest unsung heroes, not evil cabals.

"GM foods have been on tables now for generations and there has been no ill effects."

People keep singing this beautiful mantra, but in the time that GM foods are on the table, there has been an explosion of unexplained chronic illness, obesity and a host of ill effects that may or may not be attributed to GM.

"All ingredients are labeled. If you want to find if something is GM, google it."
I believe you are being deliberately obscure in this. If "soya" is listed as an ingredient, I have no way of knowing if it is GM.

If you want to believe in intelligent design or have a fear of GMO, you have my approval to do so, just. Read your intelligent design books and eat foods labeled "non-GMO". They are both crackpot ideas, but we all have our idiosyncrasies. But why do you insist one promoting your views? Do we have to put up with Orthodox Jews telling us we are forcing them to eat non-kosher food, because we don't label it?? Not yet.

Still, there's no more reason that soya should be labeled 'GM' than it should be labeled 'grown in Ecuador'. Unless there is a legitimate health concern, your desire to only eat non-GM foods is your problem and not something that requires legislation. Same goes for religious terms like Kosher and Halal.

"You would do well to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Borlaug"

I just went and looked him up. He is just the sort of person I was talking about. To you, he is a hero, but I am many people I know cannot even digest properly the wheat he has engineered. I have no problem with traditional types such as Einkorn, Spelt and Kamut, but the engineered ones cause me to puff up like a toad.

You do not even seem to be aware how many people have seriously problems with this sort of food. One of the reasons is the aggressive way they are pushed away and silenced by commercial interests. With GM it is the same thing happening all over.

What you claim are proven harmless substances are actually harmful ingredients.

Because it costs money and is a waste of the governments time and effort to legislate. If you want to buy non-GMO foods, buy only those products that label themselves non-GMO. Support your own prejudices, don't ask others to pay for them.

Well, look for foods labeled non GMO, and buy them, even though the food processor is almost certainly lying to you. It won't matter and you will be happy in in your ignorance, just quit bothering everybody else with your religious cult.

In this case, Just's ignorance is likely not feigned. He actually believes that we haven't been making genetic modifications of our food sources for thousands of years. There are broccoli plants identical to those in our gardens to be found in the wild. There are wild Jersey cows roaming the Jersey wilderness. Rome Beauty apples are found grow wild in remote areas near Rome, NY.

That is a falsehood. Never before have people been as healthy as they are today. For example, age spans continue to increase, worldwide. Turning your silly argument against you, this trend MUST be caused by the coincident increased use of GMO foods. Can you produce data to contradict this trend, or accept the argument?

Once again, those of us working in the food industry are concerned not necessarily of the possible health effects of genetic modification, but of the issue of maintaining food sovereignty. GM soy, corn, cotton etc. are all patented and thus owned (by Syngenta, Monsanto, etc.) Non-GM foods cannot be patented. This is the core issue and should be of great concern to individuals who value their right to grow their own food.

While I quite like organic and traditional farming and not a fan of Monasto (for their abuse in legal litigation), criticism against GM should be based on science only. It is involved to a sham war between competing interesting groups who are only interested in private profit and subsidies. GM is a food security and public health issue. The debate should take that as priority over any other issues.

I could not disagree more. Science and ethical behaviour must prove that GM is safe and we must retain our right, at the level of the individual, not to consume it. And not just GM, if I believe dairy to be harmful to me, I should be allowed to avoid it, without having to "scientifically prove" that this is so.

It is a matter of freedom and human rights, not science.

Your mention Monsanto abuse in litigation. I strongly believe that any company that goes down this road is also abusing scientific research. It is completely reasonable to make such an assumption.

It is a matter of freedom to be left alone and not bothered by crackpots knocking at my door and promoting their religion. Eat foods label to meet your special desires, and quit bothering the rest of us.

Very,very, simple. Do exactly what consumers of organic food, kosher food, Chinese food,... Do. Look for foods labeled to attract your business and buy them. If a producer does not label his product "non-GMO" he does not want your business.

But you want more than an ability to identify foods marketed for your consumption. You want to use the power of the law to make a political statement - as you admitted.

I want to use the power of the law to guarantee what I consider to be my rights in a democracy: the right to chose what I eat. For some strange reason, this freaks you out.
And I am convinced that ten years from today, I will be able to walk into a supermarket with my smartphone equivalent of the time, point it at the item and find out not only what the ingredients are, but their complete trace from planting to packing. But only in a democracy, in Russia, Putin the Great will still be telling people "eat up and shut up".
That is my political statement.

Are Americans stupid or are Americans stupid? Why not spend the money and effort to develop and distribute instant DNA checkers? You could probably make a litmus-like paper strip that changes colour when coming into contact with the known 'Modified' DNA of a GMO crop.
Even high-school kids can do a DIY pregnancy test, so developing a GMO test kit that can be used by high school kids should be technically easy.

Rob S
I think you are being deliberately obtues here.
I am of course referring to the particular set of DNA that Monsanto et al. used for their particular brands of GMO crops, not just any random modificaiton. Yes, it DOES involve reverse-engineering the DNA pattern using the released products, so it must be carried out where IP laws are LAX.

You have never stated that labeling would be limited to only foods associated with Monsanto seeds. That is a much more narrow definition of "GMO" than anybody else has ever proposed. Certainly the Washington law made no mention of Monsanto.

I assert that law that defines "GMO" as narrowly as you use would never be proposed.

While your invention would be great, and would be the perfect way to ease the concerns of the GMO-"truthers", it would be impossible to implement for the same reasons that GMOs are equally safe (or even more safe) for consumption as conventional or organic foods. Soy, cotton, and corn products from GM fields, for the most part, contain no intact DNA or proteins from the modified parts of their genomes.

Therefore, it is usually practically impossible to differentiate between GMO products, conventional products, and sometimes even organic products. This is one of the reasons that labeling should not be mandated. It also reveals one of the biggest lies of the organic movement. Most organic producers claim that their ingredients are more nutritious than their conventional counterparts, despite that this has repeatedly been refuted by independent, publicly funded scientists, especially in the cases of GM crops like corn, soy, and cotton.

So adding a logo or 3 letters on the package of a product will increase the price a consumer has to pay for it? This is hilarious. I can't understand how people are willing to eat RoundUp Ready crops and all the other crap. Same goes for the farmers who are paying for seed licenses. The consumer has the right to know what he or his children are eating.

I'm more than happy this isn't as widely and blindly accepted in EU as it is in the US. Zbyhnev, you can call me a luditte for that, no problem.

"Wherever the potato was introduced, it was considered weird, poisonous, and downright evil. In France and elsewhere, the potato was accused of causing not only leprosy, but also syphilis, narcosis, scronfula, early death, sterillity, and rampant sexuality, and of destroying the soil where it grew. There was so much opposition to the potato that an edict was made in the town of Besancon, France stating:

"In view of the fact that the potato is a pernicious substance whose use can cause leprosy, it is hereby forbidden, under pain of fine, to cultivate it." "

I believe that Rob is right. Veganism, like Kosher, is a great example of how the market can facilitate labels for those who want them. Since veganism has become popular, I have seen an increasing number of options in every aisle of the grocery store catering to their needs. Like GMOs, there is no reason to believe that not eating vegan will have any sort of chronic negative effects on your health. Therefore, big "Non-Vegan" labels are not mandated on packages.

Already, labels like "organic" and "GMO-free" have begun popping up voluntarily in grocery stores. If you wish to have a GMO-free diet, go for it! If demand increases for foods labeled as such, then I have complete confidence that firms will increase the supply of such goods, just as they have for vegan, kosher, and gluten-free products.

A few years back, some of these "legitimate concerns" were not considered legitimate concerns. As human beings, we have a basic right to decide what we chose to ingest. Some will be ahead of the curve, others will be abstaining unnecessarily, but at the end of the day, our lives are at stakes and we should retain the right to decide. Even if you happen to think there are no negative effects.

My own doctor is telling me that he has patients whose intestinal microflora is depleted due to use of GM. That is his professional opinion and it is my right to chose my doctor, and follow his reasoning, regardless of what Pharma financed science has or has not proven at this moment in time.

Utter rubbish. Some GMOs may contain an antibiotic resistance gene used as a marker. But even if the genetic material survives food processing, cooking, and digestion, antibiotic resistance is the exact opposite of antibiotics. It's completely implausible that this would have any impact on your gut flora at all.

The "No on 522" side said the bill was poorly written? Perhaps. Poorly understood is more likely the case and even more to the point it's really a case of don't ask, don't tell. So at least for the immediate future, in Washington state, GMO's will remain in the closet.

They say it was poorly written because it was poorly written.
They say it would increase costs because it would increase costs. Just look at California's carcinogen laws, which are very similar. They provide next to no useful safety information and have created millions of dollars of litigation expenses for institutions, individuals, and firms across the state.

See the link for details on how a recent failed California proposition, which I-522 copied word for word for the most part, is linked to this predator-lawyer phenomenon.

The pro-GM labelling campaigners should spend their resources and funds on building and distributing cheap, household DNA checkers that could identify GM crops on the spot. Then the point of labelling becomes moot.
Let Monsanto try to stop THAT without breaking laws.
After all, labelling is ever so EASY to falsify. DNA can't be falsified.

The key concern about GMOs is not necessarily about safety, it is about patenting and control of the food system. Patent law does not allow a patent on a seed that is produced in nature. Biotech has found a way around this by creating GE seeds, which are patentable. This allows seed to be owned. With at least 80% of the world's soy now genetically engineered, as that % grows to 100%, the only soy left will be genetically engineered, thus soy itself would now be owned by a corporation, and controlled. Unfortunately, this is not an area labeling advocates have effectively communicated to the public.

Are you kidding? Every single major scientific organization in the world has endorsed the safety of GMOs, including the National Academy of Sciences, the AMA, WHO, and numerous plant biology, microbiology and other professional groups.
These aren't "industry funded" groups they are the mainstream professional organizations of scientists who work in these fields, and the top scientific organization of the world.
The fact is that there is no, and has never been any, evidence that GMOs are harmful. Further, there isn't even a biologically plausible reason why there would be. We modify genes all the time with crossbreeding. Recombinant DNA techniques are just a different way of crossing in a *specific* gene.
Again, there is not even a theoretical rationale for HOW GMOs could be any more dangerous than tradiational crossbreeding.

Sir, respectfully, hybridization is a different process than genetic manipulation. Please research.
Perhaps you could kindly share your area of expertise that allows you to so confidently comment on patent law. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one unless you can provide documentation to support your claim.

Sir, respectfully, hybridization is a different process than genetic manipulation. Please research.
Perhaps you could kindly share your area of expertise that allows you to so confidently comment on patent law. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one unless you can provide documentation to support your claim.

Knowledge of patent law is irrelevant, so the several years I was part of a company that purchased and sold patents has no bearing on the question, Layne. You appear to be confused about what matters here.

The processes used to develop many new strains did not involve hybridization of existing strains - another confusion. They used the natural process of genetic variation, and selection of those variations that were useful. About 50 years ago plant geneticists accelerated variation by exposing plants to radioactive materials, creating a much larger range of genetic modifications to choose from. In 1970 patent laws were modified to permit protection of novel strains of plants. Plants covered by patent protection are listed with the USDA
naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/CAT80742336/PDF

Did I read correctly that just four donors spearheaded the No campaign. These donors were not even people but a lobbying organization and corporations. Corporations are not people. Sounds like it's time for some campaign finance reform.

I don't fully understand the issues people have with campaign finance. Why do people consider the rights of stockholders to be less than those of consumers? From this point of view, corporations are people, and the United States Supreme Court argues this point very well.

Additionally, I'm not convinced that money talks. No matter how much advertising you show someone, you still must convince them to agree with your side. I choose to believe that American voters are critical thinkers, not just sheep who vote tally the number of ads they see for each side and choose the winner.